I have a christian friend who is very much religious and hold the belief that his wife should be subdued to the husband according to old testament. He does not cook because the woman we get used to the fact that husband cooks and would not want to cook anymore.these opinions are of course ridiculous but it makes me think whether these people really believe that this approach is liked by God and beneficial for women? I think that in most case these chauvinist opinons stem from mens desire to be those in control of others and the vision that a woman is more educated, stronger, capable of decision making is so unacceptable for them that they want to keep them as subdued as possible so that women never show the potentical to endanger men in theri role and position of decision makes. On the other hand, man should be the head and a woman the neck, so maybe even today it is women who make decisions and not men. Let us consider it from both sides. On one hand women really want to bethe caring ones, caring for others, for the home, children husband etc. They cannot be takes thus generally, there are women that want to pursue carrer. Nevertheless, I do not think that it makes women happy but there may be some women that do not want to be caring for others but pursuing carrers. We should not live in the paradigm and stereotype of women staying at home.on the other hand the emancipation movements I think did not bring women peace of mind and equality. I understandwhy they do it. If there is a deficience in somethingwe usuallywant to overcome the deficience, extreme in one thing by creating the opposite extreme in the issue. Those that are subdued, when come into power want to subdue those formerly powerful. This ideology is not good because it never creates a balance but only creates extremes and unrest. I see it for example also in homosexual people. Instead of just accepting that these people exist they want to look better and more interesting than the mainstream population and thus talk abouť themsevels as more interesting than the rest of us. This is also a natural but egoistical desire to creat the other extreme. In times when homosexuality was felony they were subdued. Today it is normal to be homosexual so they want to use the liberty and create the other extrem. I think that not using the liberty for egoictical desire is a sign of wisdom. If we do not use the power to create extreme then we can be seen by the formerly supressing party as reasonable and the powerful party can be more willing to accept us as partners. But if the formerly weaked and powerless start to use their power in order to endanger the other party then the party start to defend itself and the equilibrium can never be reached. If the formerly strong party sees that non violent reasonable approach those formerly weak as endangering then the formerly strong party behaves egoistically. If those formerly strong behave fairly and those formerly weak behave reasonably, then we can reach a mutual understanding in an equanimous dialogue that should be the mark of wisdom, humankind and civilisation.
Poslané z Fast notepad